Saturday, October 03, 2015

Trump on inviting, invading, and HBD

(Click on the link following each tick mark for the relevant break in video)

- On the MENA migration crisis in Europe

Trump notes the migrants look like young, strong, fighting men who should presumably be engaged in the Syrian melee instead of running away from it. He then expresses skepticism over whether or not many of these men are actually from Syria, and follows it up by suggesting the migration could effectively be a modern day Trojan horse operation (Angela Merkel thinks she's getting quite a gift!). Finally, he says that as president he'd send back the 200,000 Syrian refugees the current nation-wrecker plans on bringing in.

If you care about the National Question, convince me of who else could possibly be your man, because if you elect to engage in the current political process I see no other conceivable choice.

- On the disastrous consequences of US meddling in the Muslim world

Essentially what Trump asserts is that knocking out Saddam and Qaddafi gave us the migration crisis, the Islamic State, and a stronger Iran. With Trump we get no more nation-building and no reigniting the Cold War. Sign me up.

- Genetics matter

This isn't the first time he's indicated as much. This revealed tendency for thinking in terms of human biodiversity rather than blank slatist nonsense is encouraging because it, almost by default, lessens the likelihood that he'll fall for stupid, destructive stuff like No Child Left Behind, disparate impact as a legitimate indicator of malfeasance, the aforementioned nation building, unskilled immigration, etc.

Friday, October 02, 2015

James Holmes attractiveness due to status, shooting people, or both?

Parsing this sort of thing is difficult, but I stand by the original CH formulation. In a list of male attributes ranked in descending order of power over the female libido, fame is at the very top. Fame brings all the girls to the yard. There are a couple posts in the archives featuring videos of pranksters in the field (i.e., a mall) pretending to be someone famous. Once word spread, women flocked to them. Next in the ranking, raw power/dominance. Violent psychopaths exhibit a form of raw power/dominance, and that is likely a big part of their visceral appeal to women.

Heartiste's comments on Colorado shooter James Holmes' aspiring harem begs the question of whether or not status, rather than cruelty and violence, is the predominant driver of the female sexual desire on display.

Does Peyton Manning--a physically unattractive, salt-of-the-earth niceguy--attract the same volume of mail attention from women that Holmes does? I have no idea. While it almost certainly doesn't comprise as high a percentage of the total mail Manning receives as it does Holmes, in absolute revealing photo counts, I'd guess Manning gets more. As a greater beta, that's what I want to believe, anyway, but I'll defer to the discerning devil on this question if he deems it worthy of taking up.

What about (relatively) low-profile murder compared to status? Does Manning attract the same volume of mail attention that a less notorious murderer does? How much of the lusting is driven by the implied high status that comes from attention--of any kind--and how much is driven by violence and psychopathy per se? Both factors are contributory. The question is one of degree.

Whatever the distribution, modern WEIRDO treatment of its societal miscreants perpetuates the socially harmful boost in attractiveness these miscreants receive as a complement to the attention that comes their way. We see them in well-dressed and in good health smugly smirking in a courtroom surrounded by authoritative men in suits who are paying attention to them.

The ancients knew better. When Caesar defeated Vercingetorix, he kept him on a subsistence diet in solitary confinement without access to the most basic hygienic services for years before revealing him to the public--bound and broken--and then force marched in humiliation in front of jeering crowds before being ritually strangled. Vercingetorix must have been more of a sex symbol before Alesia than he was half a decade after it.

Thursday, October 01, 2015

Shameful dogism

Checking around before renewing home insurance for the year, imagine the triggering I experience as I come across this:

Discrimination against pit bulls so bad that four iterations of the breed appear here

Racism in any form is intolerable enough, but to have it so blatantly incorporated into a routine business transaction shows just how far we still have to go to achieve true social justice in America!

Obviously the reason having one of these breeds as a pet increases a person's premium is because these are the breeds at highest risk of causing liability claims against their owners. If it was due to some irrational anti-terrier bias on the part of Geico, other insurers could undercut the company by offering people with these breeds lower premiums. It turns out that this is standard practice, though, because, well, because that's exactly how the insurance market works most efficiently, by basing premiums on risk profiles.

"But isn't the real question how their owners raise them?"

That confuses cause and effect. It's not that people who want aggressive dogs tend to get pits and consequently pits become aggressive, it's that pits inherently have an aggressive temperament (especially towards other dogs) and the capabilities to make that aggressiveness count that lead people who want aggressive dogs to get pits. Blacks aren't fast because they play cornerback, blacks play cornerback because they are fast.

"But labradors and collies bite, too!"

Not as frequently as rottweilers do, and perhaps even more importantly, if a lab bites at your toddler or your whippet, you might be looking at stitches. If a pit bull does, you could be putting down your pup or burying your own baby.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Playing Pollyanna

The write up on the latest NBC/WSJ poll begins "Donald Trump and Ben Carson are running neck and neck in the national Republican presidential horserace..." It shows Trump at 21% and Carson, in second, at 20%. This is the first time in since mid-July that Trump's lead has been so slim.

It may well be a reflection of reality. But the margin of error is a whopping 6.5%, more than twice as large as that of comparable polls. The sample only included 230 GOP primary voters. Spread across 17 potential choices and coupled with the fact that the result noticeably diverges from the results of four other polls conducted in the last week showing Trump's lead at between 5-8 points, some qualification is probably merited. It is not, however, provided.

Carson is putatively now the man for Trump to beat, in spite of his sensible but politically incorrect remarks concerning a hypothetical Muslim president (or, hopefully, because of them). Islam is illiberal. That's blatantly obvious to anyone who has read the Koran or is familiar with the hadiths. Consequently, the highest political office in the US should not be held by someone who has any serious fidelity to the foundational teachings of the Muslim faith.

The sobriety of his statements contrast starkly with the bipartisan zeal over the last couple of decades for trying to turn the Middle East and North Africa into a coalition of mini Americas by forcing democracy on them. Westerners have a bad habit of equating democracy with liberalism, when the two do not necessarily have anything to do with one another.

To the contrary, in much of the world--Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, just to name a few of the places American interventionist meddling has recently wrecked--autocracy has been a friend of liberalism, and the replacement of autocracy with democracy has resulted in reductions in liberalism. Had the essentially secular regime of Saddam Hussein never been toppled, the fundamentalist Islamic State couldn't possibly exist.

That Carson, who was recently slapped with a scarlet "I" for sensibly concluding that he would not support a Muslim becoming president, is currently Trump's most serious challenge is encouraging in that it suggests that the squealing about waaaaaaaycism! has completely lost currency among much of the grassroots mainstream right.

Saturday, September 26, 2015

Science is racist, sexist, and probably Islamophobic

If it's not careful, the Pew Research Center may have soon be given a new name, something along the lines of The Cathedral's Fifth Column. The center's latest report concerns "what the public knows and does not know about science" for which Pew administered a 12-question survey to a nationally representative sample of 3,278 people in the US. The data yield a succession of hatefacts:

- Men outscored women on every single question. To avoid narrative collapse, it must be maintained that girls are deprived of an educational environment conducive to realizing scientific literacy before they reach adulthood, because the reason adult men achieve so much more in scientific fields than adult women do is that men are more scientifically competent than women are.

- Men with undergraduate and post-graduate degrees outscored women of every level of educational attainment. Perhaps more surprisingly, men with some college but not even an undergraduate degree scored as well as women with post-graduate degrees and better than women at every level of educational attainment below that, included those with undergraduate degrees. Occam's Razor slices to the bone.
Landing on the moon was racist

- Non-Hispanic whites outscored both blacks and Hispanics on every single question.

- Hispanics outscored blacks on 10 of the 12 questions.

- A summary of results from several surveys administered over the last few years shows women to be at parity with men when it comes to "questions related to the life sciences" but to perform significantly worse than men when it comes to "questions related to earth sciences and energy issues" and "questions related to other physical sciences". It's almost as though women are relatively more concerned with human interactions and nurturing (the life sciences) than they are with physics and chemistry (the lifeless sciences), while the reverse is the case for men. Who could have guessed?!

- In the spirit of poor, uneducated whites outscoring affluent, educated blacks on college admissions exams, the report notes that "racial and ethnic group differences in mean numbers of correct responses on that scale occur even when controlling for education level."

- Bill O'Reilly's recorded ignorance about what causes ocean tides understandably sends a lot of ridicule his way. If perchance you find yourself in the presence of a smug SWPL or two who tries to tether you to Fox News for your dismissive attitude towards Bernie Sanders, feel free to note that "the largest differences between blacks and whites occurs on a question about the ocean tides: 83% of whites compared with 46% of blacks correctly identify the gravitational pull of the moon as one factor in ocean tides." Squirm, SWPL, squirm!